On July 11, 2019, Justice Andrew Borrok of the New York State Supreme Court, County of New York, Commercial Division, dismissed a putative securities class action against a Brazilian based online retailer (the “Company”),...more
We have been following defendants’ motions to dismiss in the In re Lending Club Securities Litigation class action, No 3:16-cv-02627-WHA, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“the...more
One year ago today, in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 135 S.Ct. 1318 (2015), the Supreme Court created a new test for opinion liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act,...more
In the spring of this year, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 135 S.Ct. 1318 (2015), resolving a circuit split regarding the...more
As the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014-15 term draws to a conclusion, the Court has resolved — or will resolve in a matter of days — several cases with potentially wide-reaching implications for a range of important policy and...more
The U.S. Supreme Court in March provided important guidance on the support required for expressions of opinion or belief in registration statements. In Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund resolved a clear split in the federal courts of appeal regarding when statements of opinion may give...more
On March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Omnicare, Inc., et al. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, et al., addressing when an issuer may be held liable for material...more
It’s Stifling in Here! SEC Rules That Companies Can’t Put Restrictive Language in Confidentiality Agreements That Could Potentially Stifle Whistleblowers - Why it matters: On April 1, 2015, the SEC announced its...more
In Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 575 U. S. ____ (2015), the Supreme Court clarified issuer liability under §11 of the Securities Act. Section 11 provides that issuers are...more
In Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, No. 13-435, 2015 WL 1291916 (U.S. Mar. 24, 2015), the United States Supreme Court addressed the circumstances under which a claim alleging...more
On March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided the closely followed case of Omnicare v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund concerning liability for false statements of opinion made in...more
On March 24, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund. The Court vacated the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s...more
The United States Supreme Court in Omnicare, Inc., et al. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, et al., clarified standards for liability that a company issuing securities may face through...more
The Supreme Court has a long history of rejecting expansive interpretations of implied private rights of action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. Most notably, since 1975, it rejected the argument that mere...more
Deciding this Term’s big securities case, a unanimous Supreme Court held on March 24 that a statement of opinion does not become actionable under the “untrue statement of material fact” clause of section 11 of the Securities...more
Securities issuers breathed a collective sigh of relief last week when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Omnicare Inc. et al. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund et al. that Section 11 of the...more
Statements of opinion do not constitute an “untrue statement of fact” if they turn out to be incorrect, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund,...more
Can a public company violate the federal securities laws simply by expressing an opinion that turns out to be wrong? In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit startled the business community by recognizing just...more
The U.S. Supreme Court found middle ground in Omnicare this week, holding that issuers’ statements of opinion issued in registration statements can be the basis for liability under Section 11 if either the speaker does not...more
This week the Supreme Court resolved a split among federal appellate courts over whether a statement of opinion in a company’s registration statement can be actionable under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 if the...more
The Supreme Court handed down the Omnicare decision on Securities Act Section 11 liability for opinion statements this week. In a judgment joined by all nine Justices the Court reversed the Sixth Circuit, concluding that...more
A common question under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 is whether and under what circumstances an issuer’s statement of opinion or belief may give rise to liability. The Supreme Court recently held in Omnicare, Inc....more
On March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, No. 13-435, 2015 WL 1291916 (Mar. 24, 2015). With some significant...more
The Supreme Court holds that section 11 liability does not attach to a statement of opinion merely because the opinion is objectively false. On March 24, the US Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in...more